By Prof. Chris Kwaja
Introduction
There is something deeply misleading about Donald Trump’s attempt to explain France’s protests through immigration. It is an argument that asks the world to ignore centuries of French history in favour of a convenient political scapegoat. It takes a nation whose streets have repeatedly become the battleground between citizens and authority and pretends that public anger must have been imported from somewhere else.
The current protests in France are the result of a combination of poor conditions in schools, rising living costs, dissatisfaction with government policies, declining public services, and wider political tensions. What began as student demonstrations in September 2026 has expanded into a nationwide protest movement involving workers, trade unions, parents, and other members of the public. On 17 October, demonstrations in several cities escalated into clashes with police, looting, and attacks on public buildings.
The current protests in France cannot be explained by a single incident. They have emerged from the interaction of educational problems, rising living costs, proposed budget savings, dissatisfaction with government policies, and concerns about the quality of public services. The student demonstrations provided the immediate trigger, but the participation of trade unions and other groups transformed the movement into a wider social and political crisis.
France did not learn to protest from immigrants. Protest is woven into the very history of the French Republic.
To understand France’s streets today, one must look beyond the politics of fear and remember the history of the country itself. One of the most dramatic examples was the French Revolution of 1789–1799, when the French people challenged their monarchy, abolished the old political order, put King Louis XVI on trial, and executed him by guillotine on 21 January 1793.
The French Revolution was the expression of a society struggling with economic hardship, political exclusion and the legitimacy of government. The storming of the Bastille became a defining symbol of what happens when a people lose faith in the structures that govern them.
In 1830, the French rose again against royal authority. In 1848, another revolution swept away the monarchy and established a republic. In 1871, the Paris Commune emerged from the profound political and social conflicts that followed France’s defeat in war. Across these upheavals, one recurring question confronted the nation: who has the right to govern, and what happens when those in power cease to command the confidence of the people?
Then came May 1968. Students challenged university structures and state authority. Workers joined them in a historic wave of strikes that brought much of the country to a standstill. Millions of workers participated in the general strike, turning student unrest into a national crisis over wages, working conditions, social hierarchy and political power. This was not an immigration crisis. It was a French social and political crisis, rooted in French institutions and French grievances. (Historical accounts from France’s National Library and the CNRS document these causes and events).
The pattern continued in our own time. In 2018, the Yellow Vest movement erupted over fuel costs, living expenses, economic inequality and the perception that political leaders were disconnected from ordinary people. Pension reform later generated another wave of mass demonstrations and strikes. Again and again, French citizens have taken to the streets to challenge decisions they believe threaten their livelihoods, dignity or social rights.
These historical episodes are not identical, and not every protest has been justified in every action it has taken. But together, they establish an essential fact: France has a long, indigenous tradition of resistance to unpopular government decisions, economic hardship and political authority perceived as unresponsive.
When Trump blames immigration for France’s present unrest, the obvious question is: why must the explanation begin with immigrants rather than with the grievances people are actually expressing?
Reports on the October 2026 demonstrations identify concerns about poor school conditions, the cost of living and declining public services, alongside broader dissatisfaction with the government. Those grievances deserve serious examination. Where individuals commit arson, assault others or loot businesses, they should be held accountable under the law. Peaceful demonstrators, however, must not be treated as criminals simply because they oppose the government. And neither violence by some individuals nor the background of some participants proves that immigration caused an entire national movement.
Immigration is a legitimate subject of public debate. Governments must address integration, social cohesion, public services, security and the pressures communities experience. But a serious debate requires evidence, not sweeping accusations that turn a complex political crisis into a story about foreigners.
A protest movement can include citizens and immigrants, people of different religions, different ethnic backgrounds and different political beliefs. Their presence does not automatically establish the cause of the protest. To understand why people demonstrate, we must examine their demands, the economic conditions they face, the policies they oppose and the institutions they no longer trust.
There is also a troubling contradiction in treating protest as evidence that a country has somehow been taken over by outsiders. France’s revolutionary history is celebrated as part of its national identity. The language of liberty, equality and popular sovereignty emerged from struggles over the relationship between citizens and power. Yet when people again take to the streets, it is tempting for some politicians to portray unrest as proof of foreign contamination rather than confront the possibility of domestic failure.
A government can be criticised without a nation being condemned. A protest can be disruptive without its every participant being violent. And a country can face genuine challenges related to immigration without immigration becoming the universal explanation for every social problem.
If schools are failing students, improve the schools. If families cannot afford the cost of living, address the economic pressures. If citizens believe public services are deteriorating, investigate and repair them. If people feel excluded from political decisions, restore meaningful dialogue and accountability. If crimes occur, prosecute those responsible on the basis of evidence.
France has witnessed revolutions, republics, monarchies, empires, strikes, student uprisings and mass movements against policies introduced by its own leaders. Its history is a reminder that public anger does not need an immigrant explanation. Sometimes people protest because they believe their government has failed them. Sometimes they protest because they believe the system listens to the powerful more readily than to ordinary citizens. Sometimes they protest because they see no other effective way to make themselves heard.
Conclusion
History demands a more serious answer than scapegoating. France’s streets have spoken for generations, under governments of different ideologies and in societies that existed long before today’s immigration debates. To erase that history is to misunderstand France itself.
France does not need outsiders to invent reasons to protest. Its own history provides more than enough evidence of what happens when economic pressures, social inequalities and political decisions collide with public expectations.
Chris Kwaja is a Professor of International Relations and Strategic Studies at the Centre for Peace and Security Studies, Modibbo Adama University, Yola, Nigeria.
